Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT considered Ms Beaudry¡¯s application for revision of judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-129. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ms Beaudry¡¯s arguments were irrelevant if they did not meet the requirements clearly established in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute to ensure the finality of a judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute and therefore was manifestly inadmissible. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT dismissed the application.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
In judgment No. 2010-Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT-129, Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT vacated Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT/2010/039 and affirmed the Administration¡¯s decision not to renew Ms Beaudry¡¯s appointment of limited duration.
Legal Principle(s)
An application that, in fact, seeks a review of a final Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT judgment can irrespective of its title, only succeed if it fulfils the strict and exceptional criteria established under Article 11 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Statute. Parties cannot rely on Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT¡¯s inherent power to reconsider to obtain a revision expressly forbidden by its Statute from a rule based on the concept of res judicata.